Bulldozing US Homeland Defence.

you mean Israeli tourists and Russians living in Israel returning home!

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
they would have shot down an unsuspecting airliner

You mean the ukrainians, about two years ago? That chartered Tu-154 had
five israeli bioweapon "scientists" on-board en route to Russia. They
were such a grave danger to the whole mankind that they needed to be
eliminated at such a huge price in civilians.

You mean the USSR, with KAL-007? There was an US RC-135 in the air,
using the KAL-007 to hide behind it. The laser gyroscope error that led
the Jumbo to fly over soviet territory and super-secret ICBM sites is
certainly strange. You can blame that Jumbo on the CIA, rather than the
soviets.

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?


I responded to your claim that no such explosion
occurred with an excerpt from the report


(Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.

From the report

"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius. Some
40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the 8"
main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly. Detonation
appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."


that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
lasted days.

From the report

"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic hydrocarbon,
some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"

He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
it.

The report states otherwise


I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
a three angle loop would be much more secure.

I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
was the problem, as the report states

"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the scaffolding
was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "


D. doesn't use
bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/


If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called burning).

Osha disagrees with you about it anyway
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguide...cognition.html

He misread my original comment, has neither supported his
reading, nor answered my call on that subject. He stays
resolutely away from the subject.


This is a flat lie

His original furnace suggestion remains ludicrous. I explained
why, he snipped the explanation then, a few posts later, came
basck asking for a discussion. When I mentioned that I'd already
explained, he simply lied.


The comment about a furnace line was a simple example of the
hazards of ruptured lines. You are twisting and turning like Tarver
at his worst

Keith, you might be a pro, but you didn't show it here.)

And now the Ad Hominem a la Tarver

I hope you enjoy your new status

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 00:44:39 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:59:36 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:03:49 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

snip

Go and look at the report on what happened at
Flixborough

I have, in detail, often, with access to a lot that isn't
generally available.

Bingo. Another claim of access to information not available to the
rest
of
us--to go along with prior claims of attending sensitive briefings on
what
US personnel were doing with the contras in Nicaragua, and battle
update
briefings with a command that had troops engaged in Afghanistan? And
you
wonder why more and more folks don't believe you?


I expalined quite directly why I had deeper knowledge than
generally available. Anybody who worked at Maitland or the Texas
plant (Victoria?) had the same. As you snipped that, I conclude
you're up to your old bull again, removing context so that you
can invent some. You've recently proven yourself grossly
dishonest three times, isn't that enough?

No, Keith has demonstrated quite amply that you are clueless regarding
the
incident at hand, not to mention of questionable veracity regarding the
subject in general, despite your, as he put it "sekret" information...
Sounds like just another example of your trying to pad your background a
bit
too much, and as I noted, it ain't the first time you have been caught
out
like this.

I'm not going to argue about Kieth with you. You've been caught
yourself more than once recently, as I said.

Please specify. I have a complete list iof your falsifications; the ones you
always hate to answer and usually resort to just snipping away before
hurling your own utterly baseless allegations.

As usual, you have
nothing to contribute.

Except for the observation that you have again apparently stepped into the
trap of claiming you have some sort of restricted "insider" information
(about a truly wide ranging field of subjects, too!), and when questioned
further on it, this time by Keith, you wilt like a three day old cut-flower
on the sidewalk.

I have two choices, switch things back to
one of your idiot statements, like the bit about artillery
hitting without knowing where the target is, or ignoring you.
I'll take the second.

Give it your best shot--and while you are at it, can you refresh us as to
what it was you were supposedly teaching those marines who were part of the
spearhead into Afghanistan? You remember--you said quite clearly that your
involvement with their preparation over the "past year" (a year where you
also acknowledged that in fact you were working in that call center...)
would have been "wasted" if they had seen fit to follow the Patton Approach
to making the other poor SOB die for his country? Or was that another
"sekret" thing? If so, you are not too good at keeping "sekrets", are you,
Mr. Mitty? I believe this was all offered shortly before you claimed to have
"been there, done that" in regards to your supposedly being fully squared
away with the "meeting engagement", having never worn a uniform but having
maybe worked for the same conglomerate that produced some kind of simulator?
Did you even work in the same division that produced samesaid simulator, or
did you make *all* of that up? And speaking of "division", that does remind
one of your last (before this one) claim to have been in on "sekret"
information, what with all of those briefings you claimed to be attending
about ongoing actions in Afghanistan (again, at the same time that you
elsewhere acknowledged you were actually working in that call center, though
you later tried to claim that you were not doing so concurrently, forgetting
that you had made the contradicting claims on *the same day* and both were
set in the present tense) given by that "Mountain Division major"--have you
figured out which division is known as the "Mountain Division" in the US
Army yet?

Gee, all them "sekrets", and nary a clue... amazing.

Brooks




Peter Skelton

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?


I responded to your claim that no such explosion
occurred with an excerpt from the report

No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
back and look.

(Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.

From the report

"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius. Some
40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the 8"
main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly. Detonation
appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."

That's long since been discredited. The total loss form the
process including the fire was 50 tonnes. You should know this.

that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
lasted days.

From the report

"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic hydrocarbon,
some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"

He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
it.

The report states otherwise


I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
a three angle loop would be much more secure.

I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
was the problem, as the report states

"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the scaffolding
was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "

I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?

D. doesn't use
bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/


If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called burning).

Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
is 250 celcius)

Osha disagrees with you about it anyway
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguide...cognition.html

quote from your source:

2. Autoignition temperatu 245 degrees C (473 degrees F)

If you're going to use a source to disagree with me, you should
select one that does not agree with me.

He misread my original comment, has neither supported his
reading, nor answered my call on that subject. He stays
resolutely away from the subject.


This is a flat lie

Is it? Then tell me where you answered.

His original furnace suggestion remains ludicrous. I explained
why, he snipped the explanation then, a few posts later, came
basck asking for a discussion. When I mentioned that I'd already
explained, he simply lied.


The comment about a furnace line was a simple example of the
hazards of ruptured lines. You are twisting and turning like Tarver
at his worst

???? It happened exactly the way I said it happened. YOu tried to
twist something and got called on it.

Keith, you might be a pro, but you didn't show it here.)

And now the Ad Hominem a la Tarver

Tell me how you showed your professionalism. (Incidentally you've
been in mode as hominem for a while.)




Peter Skelton

A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?

Palestine has dead. The authorities ended this one without public
deaths.

Pure chance. They had no absolutely contact with the madman whatsoever
..
If he decided to target a chemical plant and cause a Bhopal-scale
industrial disaster, the cops simply couldn't stop him. In the end an
entire county could get killed.

Do you know enough about the local geography and plants to say
that this sort of thing is possible?

Very detailed description:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...940309,00.html

....During the attack, according to officials, Heemeyer shot repeatedly
at a number of propane storage tanks at a distributorship with a
..50-caliber weapon. The apparent attempt to trigger a massive explosion
failed....This is just domestic terrorism is what it is....

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

:"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
:
: Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
: spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
: well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?
:
:I responded to your claim that no such explosion
ccurred with an excerpt from the report
:
: (Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.
:
:From the report
:
:"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius. Some
:40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
:state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the 8"
:main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly. Detonation
:appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."
:
: that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
: lasted days.
:
:From the report
:
:"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic hydrocarbon,
:some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"
:
: He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
: the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
: nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
: it.
:
:The report states otherwise
:
: I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
: considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
: domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
: a three angle loop would be much more secure.
:
:I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
:was the problem, as the report states
:
:"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the scaffolding
:was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
:was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "
:
: D. doesn't use
: bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
: to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
: probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
: engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
: same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/
:
:If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
:the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called burning).
:
:Osha disagrees with you about it anyway
:http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguide...cognition.html
:
: He misread my original comment, has neither supported his
: reading, nor answered my call on that subject. He stays
: resolutely away from the subject.
:
:This is a flat lie
:
: His original furnace suggestion remains ludicrous. I explained
: why, he snipped the explanation then, a few posts later, came
: basck asking for a discussion. When I mentioned that I'd already
: explained, he simply lied.
:
:The comment about a furnace line was a simple example of the
:hazards of ruptured lines. You are twisting and turning like Tarver
:at his worst
:
: Keith, you might be a pro, but you didn't show it here.)
:
:And now the Ad Hominem a la Tarver
:
:I hope you enjoy your new status

The problem, Keith, is that you're trying to argue with Peter Skelton
by acting as if the facts matter to him. He's manifestly shown many
times that they do not.

He's also demonstrated time and again that the sure way to tell when
he realizes he is in the wrong is to watch for when he starts the
insults.

So, when Peter starts in with the personal insults and attempts to
twist things, you know you've won.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:01:14 +0200, "Tamas Feher"
wrote:

A home-made armored Caterpillar turns Colorado into Palestine?

Palestine has dead. The authorities ended this one without public
deaths.

Pure chance. They had no absolutely contact with the madman whatsoever .
If he decided to target a chemical plant and cause a Bhopal-scale
industrial disaster, the cops simply couldn't stop him. In the end an
entire county could get killed.

Has Mr. Feher consulted a map to find out the location of Granby,
Colorado? Hint: it's 75 miles (and at least one mountain pass) to the
Denver suburbs, where one might first encounter any sort of chemical
plant. Perhaps the authorities were confident he wasn't targeting a
chemical plant because there aren't many chemical plants in a Rocky
Mountain tourist town with a population of a few thousand.

Regards,

George
************************************************** ********************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail:
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
************************************************** ********************


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?


I responded to your claim that no such explosion
occurred with an excerpt from the report

No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
back and look.

(Keith knows damn well ther wasn't a fifty to vapour cloud.

From the report

"Conditions at point of rupture : 8 bar pressure, 150 degrees Celsius.
Some
40-50 tonnes of cyclohexane escaped in about one minute. There had been a
state of alert for nearly an hour, since the detection of the fire on the
8"
main, but the second and catastrophic failure proceeded rapidly.
Detonation
appears to have taken place before any alarm was raised."

That's long since been discredited. The total loss form the
process including the fire was 50 tonnes. You should know this.

Cite please - you keep claiming you have
some special knowledge of this event beyond
that of the various reports in the literature.

I suggest you present it.

Meanwhile I suggest you read the report published
in the journal of Hazardous Materials in 2000
http://hugin.aue.auc.dk/publ/hoiset2000.pdf

Quote
w x Sadee et al. 1 have made an estimation of the explosive cyclohexane-air
mixture to
be a total volume of about 400 000 m3, shaped like a banana or boomerang in
its
footprint, containing 30 tons of cyclohexane at a concentration of 2% per
volume. The
authors also pointed out that a likely source of ignition was the reformer
furnace of the
w x nearby hydrogen plant. Gugan 3 stated 36 tons as a likely cyclohexane
mass. Marshall
w x 4 also stated the hydrogen plant as a probable point of ignition.
Generally, there seems
to be an agreement with respect to the general conditions of the leakage and
the location
of ignition in most reports of the Flixborough accident.
/Quote

Perhaps you prefer the report prpeared by Anthony Joseph PhD, PE
for Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 2002

Quote
The dog-leg assembly ruptured at about 4:51PM and allowed the escape of
30-50 tons of cyclohexane well above its normal boiling point. A flammable
cloud of about 14 million ft3 (about 400,000 m3) was formed from the vapor
and mist issuing from an initial jet about 600ft (about 185 m) long.
/Quote




that's the total lost in teh accident, including the fires which
lasted days.

From the report

"The feedstuff for the process was a highly combustible cyclic
hydrocarbon,
some four hundred tonnes of which would fuel the subsequent fire"

He also knows that proper valving would hav limited
the loss, there's still quite of material in the pipe, but
nothing like fifty tons and there woldn't be pressure to drive
it.

The report states otherwise


I think he's also ware that fitting a bellows at all is now
considered to be the main problem, the DuPont reports (public
domain BTW and a professional would have seen them) suggest that
a three angle loop would be much more secure.

I'm aware that fitting an incorrectly anchored bypass
was the problem, as the report states

"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the
scaffolding
was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "

I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?

D. doesn't use
bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/


If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called
burning).

Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
is 250 celcius)


I am aware of that , an ignition source for such a large release
is usually available, as it was in this case.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?


I responded to your claim that no such explosion
occurred with an excerpt from the report

No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
back and look.

No answer?
s
"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the
scaffolding
was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the pipe
was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "

I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?

Care to answer? A bellows in such a syatem is a poor idea.
Failure to anchor it makes it worse, but you're quoting very
selectively.


D. doesn't use
bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/


If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called
burning).

Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
is 250 celcius)


I am aware of that , an ignition source for such a large release
is usually available, as it was in this case.

Sure but that is not what you claimed. Probably oxidizing in air
does not bring fire on contact with an ignition source to mind.



Peter Skelton

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:50:02 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:15:39 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:19:06 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Keithe, you snipped the relevant passage abovve, and snipped the
spot where I repeated it below in explanation. That is bloody
well not honest. Are you Brooks or Fred?


I responded to your claim that no such explosion
occurred with an excerpt from the report

No, you did not. You did exactly what I claimed you did. Go on
back and look.

No answer?

Your evasion of estimates of the size of the explosion
from 3 separate quoted sources is noted.

s
"The bypass pipe was fixed at either end to the bellows, but the
scaffolding
was used to support the bypass pipe proved to be inadequate, and the
pipe
was free to squirm when the pressure increased. "

I see you're single-sourced on this. Shall we explore the
controversy surrounding the decision not to investigate further?

Care to answer? A bellows in such a syatem is a poor idea.
Failure to anchor it makes it worse, but you're quoting very
selectively.


No I'm quoting accurately.

There is nothing wrong per se with using a bellows
provided the system is correctly constrained. It was
the lack of such constraint that caused the failure
as the quote from the report accurately showed.

Note further that far from being single sourced
I have provided references to several other studies.

You on the other hand have claimed unspecified
privileged information.

This is not exactly a compelling argument.


D. doesn't use
bellows. His suggestion that the line fence is important compared
to distance is ludicrous, as is his suggestion that Cyane would
probably oxidize in contact with air. I doubt any chamical
engineer would not be aware that cyane and cyclohexane are the
same thing. I could continue, but that's enough on this sequence/


If you believe cyclohexane wont oxidise how do you explain
the fact that it did do so ? (hint the process is commonly called
burning).

Oxidize is your term, I did you te courtesy of using it. Cyane,
as you certainly should know, does not burn spontaneously at 150
C). It requires an ignition source. (The autoignition temperature
is 250 celcius)


I am aware of that , an ignition source for such a large release
is usually available, as it was in this case.

Sure but that is not what you claimed.

My claim was that Cyclohexane would probably oxidise
when released into the air, the risk of that happening
is described in the literature as high.

The NFPA rating is 3 = SEVE Can be ignited at all temperatures

The European Safety Database states

Cyclohexane is very flammable and may be ignited by contact with a hot
surface - a naked flame is not necessary.

As you accurately pointed out it has an autognition temperature
of only 260 C meaning devices as varied as a vehicle exhaust
or steam pipe can initiate combustion

Probably oxidizing in air
does not bring fire on contact with an ignition source to mind.

It does to anyone who understands what it means, let me
give you a nice definition from one of my chemistry
textbooks

burning - A rapid oxidation reaction between a fuel and oxygen that produces
heat

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---